After prolonged abstinence SLR I decided recently, my Minolta AF Lens to resuscitate Park. In this respect, I was set on the Sony Alpha system because is the intended use and the autofocus function only possible here. Who plays with a similar thought, should be aware that a perceived increase in focal length by a factor of 1.5 occurs because of the smaller APS-C sensor. What's nice in the telephoto zoom range (from my 70-210mm is a 105-315mm in KB comparison), is at the wide angle obstacle: so does a standard zoom of 28-70mm with the APS-C sensor no great meaning more because it will be perceived 42-105mm, and therefore no meaningful Wide area more contained. Fortunately the kit lens covers the standard zoom range but off, and besides, I have to go even a good Compact (Nikon P7100).
Initial tests showed that the old Minolta lenses with the A57 work out fine visually and mechanically. Especially from the focus speed of heavy Minolta AF 70-210mm f4 "stovepipe" I was pleasantly surprised, as this does not have its own AF motor. This works nevertheless very quickly and accurately. The picture quality is good, the biggest shortcoming are slight color shifts of the contrast edge in the edge region with large telephoto focal lengths.
Image quality and speed
================================
The "forced choice" of the Sony Alpha system is not problematic, as the supply the Sony Alpha cameras regularly very good test results and a very good price-performance results. So the A57, A58 and A37 are currently in positions 1, 5, and 11 of the chip "DSLR / DSLM below 1000" -Bestenliste, with the A37 as a price / performance Best. The A58 provides the best image results, but unfortunately the slowest of the three from. A37 and A57 are in terms of image quality on par, the A58 is probably a little better, that it provides for a similar noise performance a higher resolution. At the rate the A37 is even slightly faster than the A58, but A57 plays in matters (continuous shutter) speed equal in a different league.
Equipment differences
========================
In other features, the A58 between the A37 and the A57: the housing is almost as large as that of the A57, and thus to take good, but a little easier (The case of A37 is noticeably smaller, and it is more difficult so that a heavy to keep the lens). Missing as the A37 which Wasserwagen function, and the IR sensor for remote control. The display is with 460,000 sub-pixels resolution almost exactly between those of the A37 and A57, which offer half or double the resolution. It's like the A37 in the horizontal folding, but not swiveling to the side, as the A57 which also provides for another technique better color contrasts. The viewfinder of the A58 is an OLED model, which should provide slightly better color, but has the same resolution as the LCD viewfinder of the A37 and A57, and is a bit (about a factor of 0.85) smaller.
The A58 considered closer
========================
When the A58 still cost almost the same as the A57, she left for me: too small improvements seemed to compensate for the lower speed, features, and value (keyword plastic bayonet). But when now, prices fell, I came to ponder. The A37 (keep ugly on small handle) seemed if eliminate the small difference in price, and finally so I ordered but first the A58. In terms of image quality I was not disappointed. Also the viewfinder is something more sympathetic than the A57, because the smaller size allows me as a spectacle wearers even more to keep it fully in view. Also affect the colors in the LCD viewfinder of the A57 unnatural and paler.
It was ultimately to details that I sent back the A58: There is currently no detailed printed manual with, and Sony (unlike, for example Nikon) can not or will not extradite also available on request. To leave the manual to read only on the PC, or the customer play with the expression and a potential Loseblattsamlung, I feel as evil disgrace. Instead, several hundreds of pages thick, unwieldy book lies, which receives a Quick Start Guide in umpteen different languages, in the example, all menu items are sometimes mentioned briefly discusses details without. This is at the A57, unfortunately, hardly better, but here the brief instructions of two languages are a maximum combined, the English exists at all as a single issue. Thus, with this road more to start. When A57 detailed operating instructions and the PC software will be (eg RAW conversion) on a CD, with the A58, you can download it just the Internet.
Generational change
===================
One must be aware that the A58 and A57, unlike A37 only supports a new generation of accessories! For the latter, there is a plethora of accessories and third-party at reasonable prices, like lightning and remote release, and of course a lot of hand-for example, offers on Ebay. The A58 has only once not the old interface, but the new ISO Multi-shoe, and a USB connector for remote release based on it. The accessories currently count on the hand and expensive, such as a flash adapter for Sony-old flashes! Fernauslöser there is currently only in conjunction with Sony tripods (from 120) or by computer remote control, while IR remote release for the A57 receives from about 5. What you save on the A58 towards the A57, it has therefore then output quickly for a more expensive flash or other accessories. (Before there ask: yes, all of said cameras also have an internal flash, according to Sony, all with the guide number 10, only chip guide number 4 but has in the A58 measured.)
Conclusion and recommendations
======================
The decision between A58 and A57 is quite difficult, because it "I am willing to pay for more power more money?" No simple - question. When it comes to other features, the A57 is clearly ahead, but in the important image and Viewfinder Qualtiät the A58 intersects definitely something better. Therefore, there's me on the A57 just 4 points, although I have preferred finally the A58.
(ADDENDUM June 20, 2013: In the meantime, the A58 has dropped significantly in price, while the A37 has risen again and the A57 approximately equal
has remained. In this respect, possibly. Below Conclusion as no longer valid!)
Conclusion: Who looks very on the price, should take the A37, so he can live with the small housing / handle and the low display resolution. He gets so used to connect your favorable accessories, and the image quality is on par with the A57. Who puts on a quality camera with good facilities and high speed, and favorable Accessories offer value for which is probably the A57 the best choice. The A58 finally recommended for those who evaluated the image quality is highest, where the speed is more matter, and the like to be equipped with the new interface technology for the future (so you can, for example, the A58 via the USB port with the PC control).
ADDENDUM: SLT vs SLR
====================
With astonishment I have been following the discussions that arise around the Sony SLT-technology, which revolve around the issue of whether one may call this more than (D) -SLR (Engl. (Digital) -Single Lens Reflective) or SLR. Here also are raised repeatedly in my eyes completely false explanations on what defines an SLR. Therefore, here as an addendum my opinion and a few thoughts:
1. "Reflex" in "SLR" comes not from the fact that the mirror goes away. But simply from the fact that the mirror reflects light. One can already recognize the fact that it also "twin-lens reflex cameras" are (Engl. Twin Lens Reflectiv, TLR), which manage with a fixed mirror.
2. The deeper meaning of the SLR, it was always that subject in the viewfinder * possible * to see exactly as it appears on the film, there to be able to focus, without having to replace the film against a ground glass. In the twin-lens reflex was used to a second objective, which was mechanically coupled to the main objective, so that the distance setting was always the same. Most the second objective was but simpler in design (not so well corrected). The folding mirror here has both advantages in terms of costs, as well as better conformity with the subsequent image (same lens, no parallax error). Later, the deflected light was also used for other functions, such as exposure and focus automated functions.
3. In the digital age, but it can not give an image which is more consistent with the subsequent result when a removed from the sensor image. Also, this is not perfect because it is not with the same exposure time (and usually not the right panel) removed, and will not be displayed in full resolution. But the full resolution you would in the small viewfinder anyway are not allowed. Instead, there are possibly functions to increase the focal point. The consequence for me is that the SLTs (and other non-glare system cameras) much better represent the "spirit" of the SLR, as their actual representatives. Sony talks deal here as the SLTs than DSLRs next generation. However, there are definitely currently have two disadvantages: The mirror swallows some light, and the sensor before shooting always been so that he potentially heated for Live View in operation, a little. Both are bad for the signal to noise ratio. However, Comparative tests with DSLRs of the same class, that it may not be so bad.
4. Right now, however, that the levels in SLTs is only used for to feed the phase autofocus. Such a phase-AF is something we know from digital SLRs and expected high, and do not yet exist in this quality at mirrorless system cameras. Sony has this part simply taken over from the old DSLR, while the viewfinder technique was rebuilt. In this respect, a strong relationship to the SLR can not be disputed here.
5. This raises the question of the phase AF is worth it to put the mirror in the image path, and to complicate the lens design especially for wide angle lenses so? For Sony not however, because they have a solid customer base of (like me) has a lot of Minolta / Sony A-mount lenses, and these should be cultivated. Even if it would thus succeed to realize the phase autofocus systems evenly matched in mirrorless system cameras, Sony is hopefully a long time maintain the A-mount system, even if only by a corresponding bayonet adapter. However, the large, high-intensity focal lengths require continued solid mount camera connections, so that it is probably worthwhile, for it continues to offer its own housing.
6. One would choose as input or system Umsteiger a SLR, SLT, or spiegeloses system? Or we ask the question a different way: If there were no established technique, and no interchangeable lenses in stock, which would be for a manufacturer the most obvious, most sensible solution? In my opinion, divorced both SLR and SLT from here, because the phase AF equal rank at sensor level can probably wait viable focus system not long in coming. Apparently Panasonic is already so far. Then they only have the disadvantage of large bayonet flange focal length. I stands today before a system-decision, I would almost certainly take a Mirrorless with short back focus, for which there is reasonable to comprehensive camera housing. Here I would fall as the first one, the Micro Four Thirds system, which there are also the very fast mirrorless AF system from Panasonic.
